Guided bone regeneration in the treatment of a compound odontoma in a dog
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary This case report describes the successful surgical treatment of a canine compound odontoma using guided bone regeneration. A five-month-old male Labrador cross dog was diagnosed with a compound mandibular odontoma. After surgical removal of the denticles and curettage of the lining of the bony cavity, a combination of autogenous cortico-cancellous bone graft and a bovine-derived, purified bone mineral matrix was packed into the defect. A resorbable collagen membrane was then secured over the graft and the gingival tissues sutured. Radiographs taken four months later revealed advanced graft incorporation and bony healing of the mandibular defect. A second surgery was necessary to remove redundant gingival tissue dorsal to the lesion. Eight months after the first operation, radiographs revealed complete bony union and remodeling of the mandibular ramus. It is concluded that grafting of compound mandibular odontomas can be a viable surgical alternative to other more aggressive procedures such as a partial mandibulectomy in the dog. A large mandibular compound odontoma was treated by curettage of the bony cavity, removal of denticles and placement of a combination of autogenous corticocancellous graft and demineralised bone matrix under a resorbable collagen membrane. A second operation was carried out to resect some exhuberant gingival tissue. This treatment restored the integrity of the mandibular bone and avoided aggresive surgical resection.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".